Hate despite ressurection

[erik22]

Sebbie the cleaner (and sniper) of my colony killed Jessies daughter Vikesaa, cuz she was charging with a mace. She was in an enemy faction. The caravan brought her body home and she was ressurected and taken prisoner, up to be the next recruit of the colony. But Jessie still hates Sebbie for killing her daughter, besides her being alive and well.... this is a bit too much. I mean i can understand that shes angry at Sebbie, but not lifethreatening hate for something her daughter brought onto herself and also survived... eventually

[desrtfox071]

But she did kill her.

[flu007]

With enough chit-chat about cucumbers she'll get over it.

[Sebslocker]

Originally posted by desrtfox071:

But she did kill her.

This

[erik22]

Originally posted by desrtfox071:

But she did kill her.

the outcome counts for people, cuz the action was justified.
I can understand if shes pissed even tho the killing was justified, but not if her daughter is living after that. She shouldnt be in exactly the same spot as if her daughter was dead.
there should be a modifier:
killed my daughter -80
... but shes alive and safe now +30

[desrtfox071]

Originally posted by erik22:

Originally posted by desrtfox071:

But she did kill her.

the outcome counts for people, cuz the action was justified.
I can understand if shes pissed even tho the killing was justified, but not if her daughter is living after that. She shouldnt be in exactly the same spot as if her daughter was dead.
there should be a modifier:
killed my daughter -80
... but shes alive and safe now +30

I see your first mod on the horizon

[Black Goat]

https://rimworldwiki.com/wiki/Modding_Tutorials

[Jigain]

Originally posted by erik22:

Originally posted by desrtfox071:

But she did kill her.

the outcome counts for people, cuz the action was justified.
I can understand if shes pissed even tho the killing was justified, but not if her daughter is living after that. She shouldnt be in exactly the same spot as if her daughter was dead.
there should be a modifier:
killed my daughter -80
... but shes alive and safe now +30

I'm guessing you don't have children. If someone harmed a child of mine to the point where they're on death's door, my fury would have no limits. And if said child then made a recovery, I wouldn't suddenly be like "okay, I like that asshat that almost murdered my child a lot better now".

[erik22]

Originally posted by Jigain:

I'm guessing you don't have children. If someone harmed a child of mine to the point where they're on death's door, my fury would have no limits. And if said child then made a recovery, I wouldn't suddenly be like "okay, I like that asshat that almost murdered my child a lot better now".

Liking someone better is relative to outcome that shes dead and stays dead. U wouldnt like someone who hurt ur daughter, ok... but would u hate this someone more if u never saw ur daughter again cuz shes six feet under? well, ya, dont tell me it doesnt matter if u see ur daughter alive after that or not.

I dont have to be parent, to know that emotions have nuance and arent absolute

Btw ur argument is flawed...it belongs in the realm of anecdotal evidence and is in worst case an ad Hominem. U assume i have no insight into the full spectrum of emotion, only because u assume i have not sired a child.

[Jigain]

Originally posted by erik22:

Liking someone better is relative to outcome that shes dead and stays dead. U wouldnt like someone who hurt ur daughter, ok... but would u hate this someone more if u never saw ur daughter again cuz shes six feet under? well, ya, dont tell me it doesnt matter if u see ur daughter alive after that or not.

I wouldn't hate them less just because my daughter was somehow resurrected afterwards, which is what you're asking about. Your supposition is that Person A kills Person B, the daughter of Person C; as a result Person C starts disliking Person A; then Person B is resurrected and Person C stops disliking Person A to a partial degree. I feel this is a flawed premise, as the resurrection of Person B is not related to Person A at all (unless Person A is directly responsible for the resurrection of Person B, in which case I could see your argument), and as such would not reasonably affect Person C's opinion of Person A, the one who murdered their daughter. In other words, unless Person B was resurrected by direct intervention of Person A, whether Person B remains dead or not is entirely irrelevant to the relationship between Person A and Person C.

Originally posted by erik22:

Btw ur argument is flawed...it belongs in the realm of anecdotal evidence and is in worst case an ad Hominem. U assume i have no insight into the full spectrum of emotion, only because u assume i have not sired a child.

I'm not sure you understand those terms. It's not anecdotal evidence because it's not evidence, it's a statement. Evidence would be backed up by facts (or perceived facts, in terms of anecdotal evidence) and, ideally, a cited source. A statement is an expression of something, usually an opinion. As for ad hominem... honestly, and I have no "gentle" way to phrase this, if you assume that I assume that you have no insight into emotions because you assume I assume you don't have children, that's a "you" problem, not a "me" problem. All I said was that I'm guessing you don't have children. Everything else is stuff you've added to it.

Long story short, you put forth that you think parents should hate murderers less because the child they murdered was somehow resurrected. I disagreed. That's it.

[erik22]

opinion is what i mean with anecdotal evidence... and ur phrase "im guessing u dont have children" had a context. This context was that u assumed that i have no children (which is the literal sense, i dont have to assume that) and had to enlighten me with ur take of emotional relationship with ur offspring, which implies that this is somehow relevant and i was in the dark about that before.

i also disagree with u about what u call "premise" which is actually the conclusion. Not only because the person was actually partially responsible for appropriating the ressurection serum (which u couldnt know because i didnt say anything about this), but mostly because (this is my opinion) there should be a difference in response if the daughter is dead or alive. It may be that u are already eternally enraged if someone plucks a hair from ur daughter and then killing her wouldnt make a difference, which is a perfect analogy for the outcome of this event, so maybe it is just a "u" problem, not a "me" problem (which is a so called "othering fallacy" btw.)

[Zoomaster]

How on Randy's Green Rim did this conversation go from a question about a game mechanic to two random people on the internet monologuing like anime characters about to have a climactic fight?

[erik22]

Originally posted by Zoomaster:

How on Randy's Green Rim did this conversation go from a question about a game mechanic to two random people on the internet monologuing like anime characters about to have a climactic fight?

we having some minor disagreements, dont blow it up to a "climactic fight"
it was merely an exchange of differing opinions

[Zoomaster]

Originally posted by erik22:

Originally posted by Zoomaster:

How on Randy's Green Rim did this conversation go from a question about a game mechanic to two random people on the internet monologuing like anime characters about to have a climactic fight?

we having some minor disagreements, dont blow it up to a "climactic fight"

Wasn't gonna, I just found the whole ordeal a bit amusing.

[Jigain]

Originally posted by erik22:

This context was that u assumed that i have no children (which is the literal sense, i dont have to assume that) and had to enlighten me with ur take of emotional relationship with ur offspring, which implies that this is somehow relevant and i was in the dark about that before.

Once again, this is all stuff that you've added. I never said any of these things. If you insist on referring to fallacies, this would fall under a number of fallacies, including but not limited to definitional retreat, tone policing, false attribution, kettle logic, and false equivalence. Cease your hostile tone. It will avail you naught and I will not spend any more energy correcting you.

Originally posted by erik22:

(this is my opinion) there should be a difference in response if the daughter is dead or alive.

And I disagree. I don't think there should be. That's it. If you don't like my opinion, don't acknowledge it. Still doesn't mean I don't have a right to express it.

Originally posted by erik22:

It may be that u are already eternally enraged if someone plucks a hair from ur daughter and then killing her wouldnt make a difference

This is again not what I've been saying. You keep claiming I've said things that I haven't to incite an argument. What I am saying is that if someone killed a loved one of mine, I would not suddenly forgive them, either entirely or partially, just because my loved one came back to life at a later date, unless the person who killed them were also critical in bringing them back (and by critical I mean it could not, in any way, have happened without them specifically), at which point I honestly couldn't tell how I'd react because resurrection is not really something belonging to the realm of reality. What you wrote above is not at all what I've been saying, where you're trying to equate hair-plucking to murder. If, in the future, you have any more "you said this" arguments, I politely ask that you quote where I said those exact words.

Originally posted by Zoomaster:

How on Randy's Green Rim did this conversation go from a question about a game mechanic to two random people on the internet monologuing like anime characters about to have a climactic fight?

Come now, this isn't even my final form[knowyourmeme.com].

[erik22]

Originally posted by Jigain:

Originally posted by erik22:

This context was that u assumed that i have no children (which is the literal sense, i dont have to assume that) and had to enlighten me with ur take of emotional relationship with ur offspring, which implies that this is somehow relevant and i was in the dark about that before.

Once again, this is all stuff that you've added. I never said any of these things.

Originally posted by Jigain:

I'm guessing you don't have children.

why should i assume, that u assume anything when its right there in the quote by u. u never said anything of this?

Originally posted by Jigain:

If someone harmed a child of mine...

u never said anything about ur emotional connection to ur child? u never said anything about this and i added it somehow?

Best thing still is :

Originally posted by Jigain:

tone policing

1 sentence later:

Originally posted by Jigain:

Cease your hostile tone.

Dude u are clearly delusional. Btw if u find a fallacy in my text, lets debate it. And please by ur standards:

Originally posted by Jigain:

. If, in the future, you have any more "you said this" arguments, I politely ask that you quote where I said those exact words.

and not as loose collection of words that might or might not fit into ur perception. For example: where did i tone police u?

Originally posted by Jigain:

Still doesn't mean I don't have a right to express it.

Answer me one question (with quote as uve set this standard): where did i try to infringe this right, since u found it so relevant that u put it into ur rant? Or is it just there cuz of ur delusions?

Originally posted by Jigain:

Originally posted by erik22:

It may be that u are already eternally enraged if someone plucks a hair from ur daughter and then killing her wouldnt make a difference

This is again not what I've been saying.

Where did i say that this is what u said? I said this is a analogy to the outcome...
I dont want to insult u, im really worried that u have a false perception of reality because of the many mistakes in ur speech. If those are not delusions, try to explain them, im not here to anger u or anything. Everything i said up to (but not including) this comment was that i disagree with u (with explanation) and that some of ur arguments were flawed (also with explanation). U started tone policing, flinging unfounded accusations around and from my perspective: u are losing touch with reality, instead of making good arguments. Looks like u never learned to peacefully disagree which results in a cognitive distortion of some sort

btw it seems to me, (DISCLAIMER: THATS A GUESS BY ME) that u havent understood the meaning of ad Hominem. The ad Hominem fallacy is not a mere insult, but a rhetorical attack on the person, instead of the argument presented.

Originally posted by Jigain:

I'm guessing you don't have children.

is bordering an ad Hominem, because it implies (this implication implicit, not explicitely stated) that under the presented assumption i have not the experience and authority to speak on this matter. Yes, u didnt say this out loud, state this explicitely, but such sentences usually have those kind of implications. If u want to deny the truth content of this implication, why not.. but dont deny that sentences have context and implicit meaning in general and counter everything with the accusation that i take everything completely out of context. And if so: please, be more specific, how the implications that i explicitely put up to the debate, are somehow invalid

Originally posted by Jigain:

Once again, this is all stuff that you've added. I never said any of these things.

This is again not what I've been saying.

and im sure u can explain, where my tone was "hostile" before this comment. Or are u judging every disagreement with u as "hostile"?
If u try to frame the fact that i pointed out an implicitely stated ad Hominem fallacy as hostile or tone policing u clearly havent understood ´what ad Hominem actually is. To make it explicit: i definitely dont >feel< insulted by the flaws of ur arguments and i never stated as such